Okay, I'll work on that. Just seems a shame to have a big fancy header to quickly not something of interests to apologetics or the like. I'll stick with the format better. [[User:Tatarize|Tatarize]] 15:38, 28 November 2007 (CST)

Okay, I'll work on that. Just seems a shame to have a big fancy header to quickly not something of interests to apologetics or the like. I'll stick with the format better. [[User:Tatarize|Tatarize]] 15:38, 28 November 2007 (CST)

+

+

== Oops Sorry ==

+

+

Thanks Dcljr, in my rush to contribute I didn't read all the help guides (sorry). --[[User:TheRedFerret|TheRedFerret]] 12:28, 4 September 2008 (CDT)

Hi. I don't know the correct way to ask it. I would like to start the translation of this wiki to my mother tongue: portuguese. I noticed that there's no translations to any languages here. What should I do to start? Can you help me with this?

+

+

[[User:BrightMan|BrightMan]] 09:45, 21 April 2009 (CDT)

+

+

==Layout Standardisation==

+

+

Hey dude, no one's commented one way or the other on the template i devised in my sandbox to standardise layout across multiple similar pages. I've basically got nothing planned this weekend so i thought it would be a good time to start, but i thought i'd better check with an admin before i went making large changes to multiple pages.--[[User:Murphy|Murphy]] 03:51, 11 December 2009 (CST)

+

+

:You're probably getting sick of my questions by now, but i figure since you've had allot of wiki editing experience you'd be the best person to ask. What would be the legalities of us copying and pasting the code from Template:Navbar on Wikipedia to use on Iron Chariots? --[[User:Murphy|Murphy]] 06:38, 14 December 2009 (CST)

+

+

::Yet another stupid question. It seems that as the mediawiki documentation is kept as a wiki itself, the documentation is updated in parallel with the mediawiki software. As a result i'm finding it almost impossible to find documentation on versions as old as the one used by Iron Chariots.

+

::In particular, i'm wondering about custom links on images rather than having them default to the image file in the wiki commons area. On the wiki documentation it says to use the tag <nowiki>[[Image:Pic.jpg|link=Main_Page]]</nowiki> but on the mediawiki 1.6.3 testbed i'm running on my laptop, the "link=" ends up being the caption and it still defults to the wiki commons area. I was wondering if you knew the code to get this working properly on older versions.

+

::Oh, i've also got another question about copyright. As i understand, Iron Chariots is pretty strict about referencing the KJV bible for copyright reasons. How far would fair use allow for if we were to have a page comparing passages from different versions including the NIV and NLT?--[[User:Murphy|Murphy]] 00:47, 20 December 2009 (CST)

+

+

==Implication, biconditional==

+

Yeah, in hindsight, I probably should have redirected implication to the [[Material implication (if then)]] redlink. When i was looking in the double redirects, the (if and only if) was actually going through [[if and only if]] > [[biconditional]] > [[implication]] so i kindof went from there without thinking as much as i prbably should have. That being said the article appears to cover both implication and biconditional so its seem to me a moot point which its labelled at the moment. Basically I'm planning on cutting the implication stuff out and pasting it back into the [[Material implication (if then)]] so that all of the formal logical operators have their own separate sections as defined in the [[Template:Formal logic|Formal logic]] Navbox, just haven't had time yet. I've been on planes trains and automobiles for the last 2 days and I'll probably be doing family stuff for the next 2 or 3. I promise I will get around to fixing this tinsie snafu though.--[[User:Murphy|Murphy]] 17:17, 23 December 2009 (CST)

+

:Thats fair enough. I was actually using wikipedia as a source for terminology, and they use the term material implication so i just copied that. You're right though, it probably should just be implication.

+

:As for the parentheses titles; I think they may still be useful. I understand what you're saying about keeping the simplest titles for the pages, or more aptly, not unnecessarily complicating things, but i suspect that most laymen (myself included) think of the logical operators in terms of their usage (if then) (And) (Xor) etc. I think the logic section would be more easily navigable to our average reader if the functional operators were included in the title rather than just the name of the operator that many many not be familiar with. That's my argument anyways. If you still think it needs to be changed though that's fine too--[[User:Murphy|Murphy]] 17:27, 24 December 2009 (CST)

+

+

== Relativism page's questionable section. ==

+

+

Hi, I just wanted to point out that the [[Relativism]] page has had a section labeled Internal Consistency added by [[BunniRabbi]] that presents an argument against epistemic relativism as though it were against relativism in general.

+

+

Being a noob, I didn't want to modify the page myself.

+

+

[[User:RDouglasEzell|RDouglasEzell]] 08:42, 11 November 2010 (CST)

+

+

== Template question ==

+

+

Good evening. I hope to find you well.

+

I just recently made an article about one of the TV episodes produced by Ray Comfort and Way of the Master, the second episode of season two "Conscience."

The article still needs some work done, but I am not sure how to leave a link to the Way of the Master Template at the bottom of the page.

+

+

I do not wish to disturb you with this small request. If there is someone else I should talk to, or a person I should go to with these type of questions, please let me know. [[User:Feredir28|Wolf]] 14:39, 14 January 2011 (CST) Feredir28

+

+

== Drive-by Administrating (restoration of WotM articles) ==

+

+

Please communicate with Kazim (who's been handling this matter and did not restore the pages) on the issue instead of popping in sporadically (4 days out of the last 6 months, according to your contributions log), seeing significant changes, and deciding that you should reverse them before consulting anyone. The current thought is that having separate pages for individual works by an apologist goes against the purpose of the wiki; it also seems to encourage editors to attack (instead of refute) the article or apologist when a portion of an individual article is rehashing previously-refuted arguments or simply consists of "filler" that doesn't need refuting. [[User:Jdog|Jdog]] 10:27, 21 November 2011 (CST)

Welcome

Welcome! I'll be busy with the NP show today, but I wanted to get a quick response in. I looked over the issues in your sandbox and it's nice to have someone who knows about wikis, I've been learning as we go along. With regard to the redlinks issues: some of them I wasn't aware of, and some I intentionally avoided editing (like help) until I knew exactly what I wanted to include. Feel free to edit those pages as you like and, as time permits, I'll focus on them too.

No. I had actually just started reading about this the other day. It's definitely on the "to do" list, though there are only a handful of wikis that I'd bother including here.

Evidently, it's always been enabled and there were 174 links in the default list. I've added them to the discussion page and will find a way to modify those pages to have a "most used" list, "full list" and "suggested" list. - Sans Deity 18:15, 6 September 2006 (CDT)

Why are sig timestamps in MST when server time is UTC according to Preferences?

I have no clue. I'll dig around a bit.

This should be corrected now. - Sans Deity 17:22, 6 September 2006 (CDT)

Why using [[internal links]] to bolden title words in first sentences of articles (see, e.g., Counter-apologetics) instead of '''triple-apostrophes'''?

Because we saw it done that way...and didn't check the manual of style. :) This should be probably be changed, though I'm curious whether or not it's a better solution.

I'll look into this one too, I'm pretty sure that it's due to changes we attempted to make when setting up the wiki. Essentially, I wanted the URL to display as wiki.ironchariots.org/pagename. Shawn ran into some problems with, I think, the Apache rewrite...I just haven't focused on changing it.

As for the other items, feel free to change them, and anything else you find wrong. If the reason for the change is unclear or if you feel there's a gross conceptual error that should be avoided, perhaps you could add them to a list in the Help section, or something. In any case, I'm off to get things ready for the show, thanks for contributing! - Sans Deity 09:06, 26 August 2006 (MST)

Wow

Dcljr, I'm blown away by all that you're doing to bring this wiki up to speed with a professional look. Thank you thank you thank you for all the work that you've done this weekend. --Kazim 04:20, 28 August 2006 (MST)

Hey, I just remembered something that we wanted to put in a while ago. We were going to have a template that linked Bible verses. I was just messing with it again and it currently looks like this: {{Bible|John|3:16}} -> 3:16

The problem is that when you use a book with spaces in it, such as {{Bible|1 Kings|1:1}} it looks like this: 1:1. The extra space messes up the intended link. Is there a way to replace spaces in the second field with "%20"?

Hmm. I don't know, I'd have to just look around Wikipedia to find out (which, unfortunately, I'm not going to do right now — I need to get to sleep at some point). I know it'd be a lot easier if you were linking to a wiki (with interwiki linking enabled — Matt's apparently looking into that), since then you wouldn't be constructing the URL "from scratch" but just using a wiki-link, where spaces don't matter. (Even "blind searches" can be done this way, using [[Special:Search/Search term(s)]]. BTW, this would fix the problem you've had with {{WP-name}}.) Might have more to say about this in a few days... - dcljr 03:11, 29 August 2006 (MST)

Well it turns out that there is another wiki called "wikibible" -- which appears to just provide a search function for Bible Gateway, but it might work. I've heard you talk about interwiki links but I have no knowledge of how to set them up.

I've been researching this and it's going to take some work. There is no easy, automated process, you have to actually jump into the database and modify tables in order to setup the links. The nice thing is that it doesn't matter whether the link is a wiki or not, you could setup an interwiki link to Bible Gateway or Dictionary.com. I'll probably do this, but let's put together a list of what we want/need first. -- Sans Deity 10:20, 29 August 2006 (MST)

Admin page

The entries there are fine. Indefual hasn't been around, but I think his primary interest was in getting this up and running for us. - Sans Deity 09:05, 28 August 2006 (MST)

Speaking of the admin page, you'll need to update it again - I've added you as a sysop. I have a new project at work which is keeping me busy and preventing me from doing much work on the wiki, at least for the next week or so. Considering your knowledge and contributions, it just made sense that you shouldn't have to wait around for me if something needs to be done. Hopefully this status change, is acceptable, I probably should have asked first - but it's easy to change. -- Sans Deity 08:42, 30 August 2006 (MST)

No, that's fine. Thanks. On larger wikis (especially the large Wikimedia ones) I tend to resist becoming an admin (in fact, I'm only an admin on one other, low-traffic, non-Wikimedia wiki) because I don't really want the additional responsibility that comes with the additional power(s). But this wiki is still pretty low-key (i.e., no disputes, vandalism, etc., to speak of), so it should be okay.... - dcljr 14:31, 30 August 2006 (MST)

Interwiki comments

You wrote, on my talk page (sorry for the cross-page discussion, this was just the quickest way to get a response out before I head to work):

"Please compare these links to the default links listed on the talk page and modify/remove from this list." I'd like to respectfully object for the following reasons: Each wiki is free to use their own list of interwiki links and I've never liked some of the choices made by other sites (/ MediaWiki maintainers), especially metawikipedia — a perfectly horrible choice, if you ask me. In the list I started I was trying to use "logical", "obvious" prefixes. Maybe I misunderstood your note, but it sounds like you're preferring to stick to the default choices listed on the talk page."

For clarification (and I'll try to get some work done on this later today), the list that appears there is the default list which exists in the database when the wiki is installed. As it turns out, the interwiki function has always been enabled for each of the sites in that list. I'll probably delete some of the ones on that list, but here's what I think needs to be done, at a minimum:

All of this has been set up, though changes may need to be made - Sans Deity 11:24, 7 September 2006 (CDT)

That's what I was thinking, in a nutshell. - Sans Deity 09:30, 7 September 2006 (CDT)

Latin or English nomenclature

A while back, there was Talk:Argumentum ad baculum a bit of a discussion, and it was decided that logical fallacies should be kept under their formal (usually Latin) name, and that English synonyms should be redirects to the Latin page.

I'm not fundamentally opposed to changing the rule, but I'd like for there to be consistency.
--Arensb 14:08, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Consistency was the goal. In some cases, it may be argued that the formal name is the more popular version. In some sense, it doesn't make any difference where the article lives as the redirects essentially make them equivalent. The only place where this becomes truly problematic is when we're looking at a page on logical fallacies that links to all of them, or the appropriate category page. On an article page, I think I'd actually prefer a list that links to the formal name and includes the common name in parentheses, for clarity. The category page seems to be the only sticking point. I'm wondering if a redirect page could also have the category link - so that the category page has a link to both articles, even though one simply redirects to the other? -- Sans Deity 16:22, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Putting redirects in categories seems like the best solution, IMHO, if it works. Kind of like an index that lists synonyms of a concept. --Arensb 16:29, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Yup, it works. I guess I should start categorizing redirects, unless someone can whip up a bot to do that. --Arensb 16:32, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

I think we can go with manual categorizing, since there should only be a small number of cases where it's necessary. Follow-ups on this topic should perhaps be dealt with on Project talk:Categorization? - dcljr 20:36, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

I'm a big fan of automation. Perhaps in an ideal world there'd be a magic template for redirects, call it {{Synonym}}, that means, "fix the categories for this redirect to be the same as whatever it points to". But you're correct that at least for now, there are few enough cases that they can be maintained manually.

This is slightly nontrivial in that we don't want all redirects to appear in the category listings: as discussed above, it'd be good for both "Petitio principii" and "Begging the question" to appear in a category listing, but we don't want to do that with, say, "God", "Deity", and "Deities". (I guess this is a lot of words to say that we're basically in agreement.) --Arensb 11:44, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

Question about categories

I noticed that you put Religion in [[Category:Religion|*]].
As I understand it,adding a pipe and a sort string tells MediaWiki to alphabetize according to the sort string. So adding |* tells it to put Religion in the "*" tab of the index.
Is that what you intended to do? If so, why put it under "*" instead of leaving it under "R"?
--Arensb 15:40, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

Hares Chew Cud

Should i just manualy format the referances? or just wait for a <ref> tag to be implimented? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Narmical (talk • contribs).

Well i have a version saved on my computer that doesnt use the template, so no biggie Narmical 08:20, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

Denis's introduction

Thanks for adding the latest The Non-Prophets introduction. Ironically enough, though, this was the first one that Denis mailed me. I was going to copy and paste it in, when I saw that you'd already transcribed it. --Arensb 22:08, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Failed template

Yeah, it was a pretty lame attempt. I was trying to get a template merge, finally I just grabbed the template for wikify from this wiki and called it a day. No real need to be fancy, just wanted something to say that Jesus fulfilled prophecy is pretty much a dupe of Messianic prophecy, and was feeling adventurous in the realm of cargo cult programming. If you notice when I trashed the template for ambox I used 'fail' as the summary. Although, actually the wikify and merge templates probably share like 95% of the same info and could be rereferenced to an box template (which would help if those templates needed a change). Tatarize 04:19, 20 November 2007 (CST)

Section header.

Okay, I'll work on that. Just seems a shame to have a big fancy header to quickly not something of interests to apologetics or the like. I'll stick with the format better. Tatarize 15:38, 28 November 2007 (CST)

Oops Sorry

Thanks Dcljr, in my rush to contribute I didn't read all the help guides (sorry). --TheRedFerret 12:28, 4 September 2008 (CDT)

Signing Comments

Translating to portuguese

Hi. I don't know the correct way to ask it. I would like to start the translation of this wiki to my mother tongue: portuguese. I noticed that there's no translations to any languages here. What should I do to start? Can you help me with this?

Layout Standardisation

Hey dude, no one's commented one way or the other on the template i devised in my sandbox to standardise layout across multiple similar pages. I've basically got nothing planned this weekend so i thought it would be a good time to start, but i thought i'd better check with an admin before i went making large changes to multiple pages.--Murphy 03:51, 11 December 2009 (CST)

You're probably getting sick of my questions by now, but i figure since you've had allot of wiki editing experience you'd be the best person to ask. What would be the legalities of us copying and pasting the code from Template:Navbar on Wikipedia to use on Iron Chariots? --Murphy 06:38, 14 December 2009 (CST)

Yet another stupid question. It seems that as the mediawiki documentation is kept as a wiki itself, the documentation is updated in parallel with the mediawiki software. As a result i'm finding it almost impossible to find documentation on versions as old as the one used by Iron Chariots.

In particular, i'm wondering about custom links on images rather than having them default to the image file in the wiki commons area. On the wiki documentation it says to use the tag [[Image:Pic.jpg|link=Main_Page]] but on the mediawiki 1.6.3 testbed i'm running on my laptop, the "link=" ends up being the caption and it still defults to the wiki commons area. I was wondering if you knew the code to get this working properly on older versions.

Oh, i've also got another question about copyright. As i understand, Iron Chariots is pretty strict about referencing the KJV bible for copyright reasons. How far would fair use allow for if we were to have a page comparing passages from different versions including the NIV and NLT?--Murphy 00:47, 20 December 2009 (CST)

Implication, biconditional

Yeah, in hindsight, I probably should have redirected implication to the Material implication (if then) redlink. When i was looking in the double redirects, the (if and only if) was actually going through if and only if > biconditional > implication so i kindof went from there without thinking as much as i prbably should have. That being said the article appears to cover both implication and biconditional so its seem to me a moot point which its labelled at the moment. Basically I'm planning on cutting the implication stuff out and pasting it back into the Material implication (if then) so that all of the formal logical operators have their own separate sections as defined in the Formal logic Navbox, just haven't had time yet. I've been on planes trains and automobiles for the last 2 days and I'll probably be doing family stuff for the next 2 or 3. I promise I will get around to fixing this tinsie snafu though.--Murphy 17:17, 23 December 2009 (CST)

Thats fair enough. I was actually using wikipedia as a source for terminology, and they use the term material implication so i just copied that. You're right though, it probably should just be implication.

As for the parentheses titles; I think they may still be useful. I understand what you're saying about keeping the simplest titles for the pages, or more aptly, not unnecessarily complicating things, but i suspect that most laymen (myself included) think of the logical operators in terms of their usage (if then) (And) (Xor) etc. I think the logic section would be more easily navigable to our average reader if the functional operators were included in the title rather than just the name of the operator that many many not be familiar with. That's my argument anyways. If you still think it needs to be changed though that's fine too--Murphy 17:27, 24 December 2009 (CST)

Relativism page's questionable section.

Hi, I just wanted to point out that the Relativism page has had a section labeled Internal Consistency added by BunniRabbi that presents an argument against epistemic relativism as though it were against relativism in general.

The article still needs some work done, but I am not sure how to leave a link to the Way of the Master Template at the bottom of the page.

I do not wish to disturb you with this small request. If there is someone else I should talk to, or a person I should go to with these type of questions, please let me know. Wolf 14:39, 14 January 2011 (CST) Feredir28

Drive-by Administrating (restoration of WotM articles)

Please communicate with Kazim (who's been handling this matter and did not restore the pages) on the issue instead of popping in sporadically (4 days out of the last 6 months, according to your contributions log), seeing significant changes, and deciding that you should reverse them before consulting anyone. The current thought is that having separate pages for individual works by an apologist goes against the purpose of the wiki; it also seems to encourage editors to attack (instead of refute) the article or apologist when a portion of an individual article is rehashing previously-refuted arguments or simply consists of "filler" that doesn't need refuting. Jdog 10:27, 21 November 2011 (CST)